No. They changed it because there needs to be a hard number to be a legally enforceable speed limit – otherwise it is too vague for due process. And here you thought you could just come in after everyone else and pretend to win.

and you’d assign it to that we are driving faster. ergo we should be driving even faster yet.

It must be in his own little world the I-70 of which he speaks. Because, I travelled a large portion of I-70 last year and I don’t recall ever seeing any construction zone signs, construction zones or construction. Now that I think about it I don’t recal seeing anybody pulled over for traffic violations either.

Then why did they suddenly abandon the reasonable and prudent approach and go back to a numerically posted limit? Why because people were driving like lunatics there they were flocking there just to drive as fast as they wanted. Then when they crashed and were arrested for driving faster than reasonable and prudent they got the NMA to step in and defend thier actions getting those who were actually guilty of exceeding reasonable and prudent off without any retribution for thier actions. If the NMA did an about face and started actually caring about the deaths on our highways they could do alot of good. Just imagine if the NMA became as powerful a lobby as MADD has. They could do it to all they have to do is abandon the “nobody should be punished” approach to traffic control.

It doesn’t matter what any study you can provide proving your positions says. He will discount and condemn any study or report that doesn’t support his personal agenda.

so what you are saying is if there was no retribution for driving drunk there wouldn’t be an increase in the number of people who consume alcoholic beverages then drive home, regardless of how intoxicated or impaired they have become? Somehow I don’t believe that and it works with speeding, redlights and everything else. If there is no retribution for not following the rules less people follow the rules.

(We must use our resources intelligently and wasting them on drivers that have displayed not signs of problems yet is ignorant and wasteful. Nobody **wants** more crashes but we need to allocate our resources wisely.)

Is using our resources wisely anything like explaining to NMA members effective ways of reducing the numeric results of the breathalyzer? Or Propagandizing scientific results by quoting portions of them out of context to imply a false conclusion with no other purpose than to create public distrust of the police? Maybe if the NMA wasn’t so anti authoritarian they could use thier resources to actually help decrease the number of auto related fatalities each year.